Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Japan, U.S. at Odds Over China's Air Zone

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Winton,

    Understand when you are discussing nuclear weapons with the The Colonel (aka Officer of Engineers) you are discussing matters with a man who lead much of the work of the Canadian Forces in planning and employing/counteremploying nuclear weapons.

    So unless you can match his expertise you are going to be blown out of the water each time.

    The 'little flight of fantasy" you describe is never seen by those of us who have done some of the work and developed the cold, hard facts back in the day. We tend not to do "flights of fancy" as we are grounded in the reality of the Cold War.

    Just a word to the wise.
    Ah, a response I can use this way and that is why does anybody respond to him? I don't anymore as he knows everything there is to know about every country in the world. In his mind that is...

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
      Please do explain.....I cant wait to hear this explanation.
      I thought you'd never ask.

      You need money to prosecute a cold war. To buy equipment, to buy influence, to lock your opponent out of trade with other nations by offering that nation aid.

      Now either you raise taxes, or you borrow. Raising taxes aren't politically possible, so you borrow.

      So who do you borrow from? From someone that has surplus cash to lend.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
        Death traps? Obviously you dont know jack about those ships. How many sailors have these "deathtraps" as you call them killed?
        That was artistic license on my part. but read the article below.

        Navy's $670 Million Fighting Ship Is 'Not Expected to Be Survivable,' Pentagon Says | Danger Room | Wired.com

        I just don't find working in an aluminium box very reassuring myself.
        Last edited by winton; 09 Dec 13,, 23:53.

        Comment


        • #49
          Back on topic, I think this article takes a step back in order to see the bigger picture.

          Why China considers its new air zone a success - The Globe and Mail

          Quite an interesting read if someone wants to see what the chinese perspective is, perhaps. And its from a canadian publication.

          heres a few quotes:

          After all, while the U.S. has repeatedly rejected China’s air zone claim, it has stopped short of pushing for China to rescind it.


          In short, Beijing lost some face when it didn’t respond to the American flyover, but if you’re grading Beijing’s strategy on the issue, it earns high marks.
          Last edited by winton; 09 Dec 13,, 23:59.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by winton View Post
            I thought you'd never ask.

            You need money to prosecute a cold war. To buy equipment, to buy influence, to lock your opponent out of trade with other nations by offering that nation aid.

            Now either you raise taxes, or you borrow. Raising taxes aren't politically possible, so you borrow.

            So who do you borrow from? From someone that has surplus cash to lend.
            There are other parties more than willing to buy US treasury bonds. The Chinese invest in US treasury bonds currently because they literally have nowhere else to put it. One should also note that the Chinese economy does not rely that heavily on trade anymore. It is "driven" by domestic investment.

            Edit Re LCS: It's not designed for high-intensity surface or sub combat. It isn't a primary surface combatant. So don't expect it to do that job. If we wanted it to be able to kill Type 054As, we would have given it harpoons or something.
            Last edited by ace16807; 10 Dec 13,, 00:02.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by winton View Post
              I thought you'd never ask.

              You need money to prosecute a cold war. To buy equipment, to buy influence, to lock your opponent out of trade with other nations by offering that nation aid.

              Now either you raise taxes, or you borrow. Raising taxes aren't politically possible, so you borrow.

              So who do you borrow from? From someone that has surplus cash to lend.
              Lets have a little history lesson shall we?

              Name one war in the last 8 decades that the US persecuted with China's aid money as you state.

              Now, dont give me your opinion, give me facts and by facts I dont mean wikipedia horseshit.

              Show me..... Show me the trail of money.

              You cant!
              Last edited by Dreadnought; 10 Dec 13,, 02:01.
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by winton View Post
                That was artistic license on my part. but read the article below.

                Navy's $670 Million Fighting Ship Is 'Not Expected to Be Survivable,' Pentagon Says | Danger Room | Wired.com

                I just don't find working in an aluminium box very reassuring myself.
                And the men that served WWII on wooden PT boats would laugh at you and state different.

                They were extremely effective in the Littorials.

                Have you ever worked in a steel box that floats?

                If you were on a minesweeper or mine detail you would only wish your ship was made of aluminum for the obvious magnetic reasons.

                The LCS is built for the Littorials as in rivers, bays, shallows. They have almost every Naval moderization there is incorporated into them albeit in their infancy.

                They have growing pains just like every other ship the USN has ever launched from Carriers to Submarines.

                Judging the LCS as a "death trap" is not only short sighted but also proves that you have about zero experience in how the Navy goes about creating a new class of ship to working the bugs out, to bringing it to the pinacle of its performance and deployment in a contested zone or sphere of influence.

                The US is no stranger to Littorial combat. Nor designing ships for Littorial combat. The Korean and Vietnam wars
                would readily point that out to you if you bothered to read.

                There is probably not one platform the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps have ever fielded without growing pains. From tanks , to planes, helos, to guns, to ships to IT tech, missles drones etc.

                But yet in combat they are pretty much unmatchable as far as duribilty, quality and function after the growing pains are worked out and they are perfected.

                Calling it a "death trap" with an artistic license pretty much shows the level of understanding that you have when it comes to military assets and how they mature into becoming what they are. Very reliable platforms that most of the US and NATO allies deploy.

                Did you ever wonder why US military assetts are the most copied assetts on the entire globe?

                Because they do not negate the "learning curve" where as other nations (China & Russia included in the copying) expect to be able to run before they can walk in copying.

                Now who builds "death traps"? The international media is full of examples excluding the US.

                Talk a long look.
                Last edited by Dreadnought; 10 Dec 13,, 02:12.
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by winton View Post
                  read what Toshi Yoshihara & James R. Holmes had to say.

                  The Master ‘PLAN’: China’s New Guided Missile Destroyer | The Diplomat | Page 3

                  "On paper, at least, this officially makes China’s the leading indigenous Asian navy. Once the 052D contingent joins the fleet, the PLAN can expect to take on any regional fleet—excluding the U.S. Navy, of course—with better-than-average prospects of success. It will command a 16:6 advantage over the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, 16:3 over the South Korean Navy, and 16:9 over the combined Japanese and South Korean fleets. That’s significant."
                  this shadowy new vessel is an improved variant of the Type 052C, itself a man-of-war touted by Chinese naval enthusiasts as [“China Aegis,” an equal to state-of-the-art U.S. Navy vessels. (We remain unconvinced by these claims.)
                  So they are not convinced untill they need to be

                  If the PLAN puts ten Type 052Ds to sea, as the Taipei Times forecasts, then China will boast a fleet of six teen Aegis-equivalent warships—even in the unlikely case that it builds no more combatant ships of this type. By comparison, Japan and South Korea, the only Asian powers with similar naval heavyweights in their inventories,currently possess six and three Aegis-equipped destroyers, respectively.
                  So gentlemen Either it is equivalent or it isn't (its not). It helps if the authors stick to the same script for the whole story.

                  The 052Ds are the equivalent of a modest version of a Burke in their words Except when they are not. Like when you compare, size range armament and electronics. Thats like saying a Ford Ranger is a modest version of a Mack Semi truck.
                  But guess what they leave out hat the Kongos and Atagos are bigger versions of the Burke with just as much throw weight. They have additional Command and Control.

                  Concerning the authors assertion that the Chinese have the JMDF outnumbered 16 to 1. Do they not count the other Destroyers the Japanese have that will be data linked to the Aegis system.

                  Its a garbage article written around a preconceived notion that they have molded/presented the facts to support.

                  And yes I know they are "Fellows" at the Naval War College. I hope this isn't an example of where you get your "Knowledge". But it would explain much about your post up to now

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                    The US is no stranger to Littorial combat. Nor designing ships for Littorial combat.
                    At $670mil, the design leaves alot to be desired. Taxpayers are well within their rights to question and criticize this design let alone the pentagon.

                    Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                    Calling it a "death trap" with an artistic license pretty much shows the level of understanding that you have when it comes to military assets
                    Did you ever wonder why US military assetts are the most copied assetts on the entire globe?
                    Death trap is the headline, but I think J. Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation said it best when he said "LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment"

                    I'm not making this up. Have you read the article?


                    Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                    Because they do not negate the "learning curve" where as other nations (China & Russia included in the copying) expect to be able to run before they can walk in copying.
                    Perhaps the US could learn something from the chinese type 056.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by winton View Post
                      That was artistic license on my part. but read the article below.

                      Navy's $670 Million Fighting Ship Is 'Not Expected to Be Survivable,' Pentagon Says | Danger Room | Wired.com

                      I just don't find working in an aluminium box very reassuring myself.
                      LSTs were a one way ticket ride. The LCS isn't the first, nor will she be the last ship that "is not expected to survive"

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by winton View Post
                        At $670mil, the design leaves alot to be desired. Taxpayers are well within their rights to question and criticize this design let alone the pentagon.



                        Death trap is the headline, but I think J. Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation said it best when he said "LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment"

                        I'm not making this up. Have you read the article?



                        Perhaps the US could learn something from the chinese type 056.
                        I read the article. He may believe his findings are just and thats ok with me. All he is doing is presenting a report. But remember, the USN is also building a new class of ship in every much the same way a new USN carrier cost over 4 billion dollars to build (not counting the few billion dollars in air asests stationed aboard at any one given time). You start from scratch this is not a Burke or Tico.

                        Heres a good question to ask for the skeptical.....

                        Something his article fails to either admit or mention.

                        What is he comparing his findings to since this is a new class ship build, new hull, new propulsion, new weapons, new utility?

                        The problem is, he has nothing to compare this to but he is correct in his report if you take it at face value. I dont think the numbers are false for the record.

                        The US has pretty much built nothing substantial outside the Asheville class PG's and the newer (then) armed Hydrofoils as far as shallow draft, fast littorial platforms are concerned for river and shallow water passage zones.

                        Perhaps the US could learn something from the chinese type 056.

                        Two entirely different Navy's all together chief, I have yet to see a Chinese littorial corvette (Type 056) in US waters, but I have seen plenty of official pics of US littorial PG and many other classes of USN patrol boats in the Phillipines, Singapore, South Korea waters etc.

                        In other words very close by to China operating off the coasts, in the island chains waterways etc and have for the last few decades.

                        The USN designs ships that actually have to get there first which is about 6,000 nautical miles of open ocean in various states not to mention storms, refueling, replentishment, interdiction etc.

                        And just think, all of those forces reacting upon as you criticise... an aluminum hull.

                        China's designs are different all together. All they have to do is patrol around and off their coast. Not cross oceans for weeks and take the stress and strains the LCS hulls and others take.

                        * They are not blue ocean boats such as the USN builds.

                        So in that case, I find the need to copy anything from China as flawed in that instance all together. Different drafts, different bows etc. Different design.

                        And as mentioned also above, his report does not mention the pre-conditions of designing a ship that can do just that (cross those oceans) and yet be forward deployed on patrol as one is now and the rest shall be as built and rotated as then bugs come out.

                        It fails to mention that all together, and thus the US taxpayer as you mention above that demand to know this (as you put it) will never know that long list of requirements before you even get to the patrolling part of the deployment.
                        Last edited by Dreadnought; 10 Dec 13,, 07:01.
                        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Smog? It bolsters military defence, says Chinese nationalist newspaper | South China Morning Post

                          According to the Chinese, the Smog generated by the hyper-pollution bolsters military defence, says Chinese nationalist newspaper.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Enzo Ferrari View Post
                            Smog? It bolsters military defence, says Chinese nationalist newspaper | South China Morning Post

                            According to the Chinese, the Smog generated by the hyper-pollution bolsters military defence, says Chinese nationalist newspaper.
                            A real tiny sliver of silver lining in a real humongous mother of all gray clouds.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Carriers from Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia have joined airlines in the United States and South Korea in complying with Beijing's request in the event their aircraft pass through China's newly declared ADIZ.

                              The move is causing concern in Japan, which is in danger of becoming isolated as the lone holdout requiring its domestic airlines not to submit flight plans to Chinese authorities.


                              More airlines submit flight plans to China, while Japanese carriers hold out - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

                              I wonder what the next step will be? My guess is that china will scramble a jet to id a JAL flight. This will cause the Japanese carriers to start submitting data in the interest of air safety.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by winton View Post
                                Carriers from Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia have joined airlines in the United States and South Korea in complying with Beijing's request in the event their aircraft pass through China's newly declared ADIZ.

                                The move is causing concern in Japan, which is in danger of becoming isolated as the lone holdout requiring its domestic airlines not to submit flight plans to Chinese authorities.


                                More airlines submit flight plans to China, while Japanese carriers hold out - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

                                I wonder what the next step will be? My guess is that china will scramble a jet to id a JAL flight. This will cause the Japanese carriers to start submitting data in the interest of air safety.
                                So China has unilaterally decided to make a previously safe piece of airspace 'unsafe' for any aircraft crossing it unless they do as China says. Thanks for confirming that.
                                sigpic

                                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X